Congress of Power

The Congress of Vienna changed the entire post Napoleon landscape of Europe. But because of this radical transformation of the continent a major question is raised; What should people in power do when their power is threatened? In small groups during class we created small "congresses" where we had to decide what to do in a given situation that was related to the congress of Vienna.


One of the major things that the congress of Vienna created was the "Principal of Intervention" this was the idea that gave the major powers the right to send troops into other countries to stop revolutions. The idea of this was that if a group of people in a country started to revolt then the major powers could immediately stop it before it gained traction. This idea was one of the major ideas that was discussed in our groups and there was a big divide over wether it was ethical to not let people in a country revolt against what they saw was wrong; without being slaughtered in the name of the safety of power. The leader of the congress of Vienna, Metternich of Prussia used the concept of Principal Intervention to strike fear into potential revolters as well as to crush revolters. By doing this there was a small amount of Revolutions and turmoil in Europe for a long period of time. The concept of Principal Intervention strongly helped countries keep their power from being taken over and was a big reason why Europe remained peaceful for a long period of time. The Conference of Vienna was a huge turning point in the start of a new European age.

Metternich,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klemens_von_Metternich

The Conference of Vienna made crucial and controversial choices in their pursuit to retain power. By doing this they helped shape Europe into a more peaceful place while still letting countries retain all of their old power. While I do agree with the overall idea of trying to create a more peaceful place instead of having constant huge scale revolutions; the overall idea of letting the huge world powers retain all of their power didn't sit with me well. There should of been a better way of handling revolutions instead of immediately extinguishing them before they could get out of hand. People should have the human right of fighting for what they believe is right without being massacred for their beliefs. Power easily could of been managed better had the world powers agreed to allow power to be dispersed equally instead of letting the world powers keep their insane power, even if in the end it led to relative and long lasting peace.

Link to Nationalism Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEayxhN6XrQ&feature=youtu.be

The Changer of the 1800s Globe

By: Ian Ballou

Napoleon Bonaparte was military genius who's vision of becoming the ultimate ruler changed more things then just the boundaries of France. Napoleon's impact has effected generations of social, political, and economic happenings throughout Europe. While some of these things can be viewed as negative, Napoleon's overall footprint on 19th century society was a large and a mostly positive one.

Napoleon impacted French society by regaining the order and unification of France which hadn't happened for decades. He believed in everyone having an equal chance at success, himself coming from humble beginnings. By trying to create a more fair system of government he also helped create a better overall economy. The French army would overthrown nobility and serfdom in nations they conquered and by doing so made a more equal middle class while wiping out the high class and the lower class. This lead to more industry and fairer chance then there had been before in these countries. Napoleon also created a bank of France in which he used to help create more public programs that helped the French society as well as the economy. Napoleon's philosophy of doing something new at least every three months made him an eccentric ruler who was sometimes inconsistent in his ideas and actions during his time as ruler. He was also a great war tactician who out smarted his enemies and was cunning enough to take over vast amounts of land with the idea that the world would be his. While these were mostly good things that helped society and economy
 Napoleon had his fair share of negative impacts.

Napoleon's political ideals were sometimes shady and immoral. He would appoint relatives and friends to high positions in the countries he would overthrow. He drew a map of Europe in which Britain was the only country not included in his empire, that shows his overall want to take over any and every country. In his later years he viewed himself and his country as immortal which lead to some of his bad decisions such as invading Russia. He was also a dictator who was at times ruthless in how he handled his country.

Although Napoleon had some negative impacts on his country overall he was a great leader who made France a world power, by helping create better social, economic, and political impacts on his country. He had an overall positive impact on his country and helped make Europe a better place, socially, economically, and politically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon

The Luddites: The Misunderstood Economic Robin Hoods

The Luddites were 19th century rebels, who in the unjust economic times of the Industrial Revolution; fought the factory owners and the rich by destroying machines in factories. Over time people's views of what they stood for seemed to become a bit blurred; mixing they're fight against the unfair economy with  believing the Luddite's sole purpose of existence was to destroying all technology. The Luddites were strange people who waged they're war on the economy dressed in women's clothing, pretending to the wives of the mythical "Ned Ludd". The humor is evident in thinking of grown men destroying machines in factories while wearing dresses. These people had strong views in believing that people should have a fair shot at an equal economy and hoped to weaken the rich factory workers by destroying their machinery. They were like the Robin Hoods of the Industrial Revolution taking from the rich in hopes of helping the poor, the major difference of course, Robin Hood never wore a dress. In the next paragraph a mock primary source letter in which a fake individual will write to their cousin in America telling them about this radical group of people during this time period will be shown.

The Mythical Leader of the Luddites, Ned Ludd

Dear Jim-Bob,

It's your cousin Rico and I am writing to you today to tell you about these strange people who are causing many issues in my country. I as you know am a soldier for the great country of England and I work hard to ensure that everyone and everything is safe. But these horrible people who call themselves "Luddites" are causing huge issues. These people are going around to factories and causing issues by destroying machines and endangering the workers. They do it all dressed in women clothing, which is strange to say the least. These dangerous and horrible people needed to be stopped immediately before things get more out of hand then they should. Industrialization has been fine for me because I work for my country and I am not shoved into any of those death traps they call factories. While I do understand that these Luddites are trying to help these poor people I don't think its right for them to be doing these things. I will fight until the day I die to ensure that this country is safe and prosperous and will stop these Luddites from their devious work.

Long Live England,

Rico

America vs. Britain: Which Workers had it Worse?

In both England and the United States there was horrible factory conditions, that effected the workers in dramatic ways. From having to eat the same terrible food everyday to getting little to no pay and the worst of all many horrific deaths caused by the dangerous machinery run by young children. While both countries were home to these horrors the question still remains, which country had worse factory conditions?

In the country of Britain the working conditions were horrific. To start of many of the children who were employed in these factories were orphans, which the government saw as a good place to put these children instead of leaving them in the overcrowded orphanages. The working conditions in the factories were terrible at best. The children would work from five in the morning until eight or nine at night and had no breaks other than eating dinner standing up. The food they got for breakfast and dinner consisted of water porridge, oatcakes with onions, milk and in someplaces potato cake with boiled bacon. They received little to no time to eat dinner or breakfast and they never had tea time or anything of that sort. While the food was bad enough the conditions only got worse from there. The overlooked of the workers were brutal to the children, they would beat them for not working fast enough or not doing their work correctly, sometimes to near death or until they were seriously maimed. On top of all of this theses factories were death traps. The machinery was extremely dangerous and was run by young children who weren't suited to run these machines. These machines could cause damage to people from losing a finger to being cut up into pieces or mangled and mutilated. Even though the machines posed a huge threat of injury, people also got deformed from constant abuse to the body through long hours of hard labor. People's bones could get extremely deformed from the abuse to them and the extremely long hours of working could cause people to have deteriorations of body parts and bones over time due the hard labor.


In the United States working conditions were not too bad to start off and then deteriorated over time. At first working conditions weren't horrible because the mill owners were trying to get farmers to let their daughter go work at the mills.During the beginning of this time period farming was doing well and there had to be a big reason as to why a father would give up an extra hand to help with the farm. So factory workers would go out and recruit girls from farms by claiming that their factories offered a place with no worry as well as giving the young girls a place to live and a place to make money. The factories weren't as good as advertised but they still weren't too horrible. But as time went by the factory's quality started to deteriorate. The young women who worked at these factories still had to live in harsh working conditions as well as having to work for long hours with not a lot of breaks. Most of the time workers would start working at five in the morning until seven at night. They would receive a break for breakfast at seven in the morning and a dinner time at seven at night. These workers received decent wages for their work and also had time to go to class as well as a mandatory 3 months of schooling if they were under a certain age. Although these conditions seem not that horrible they in fact had just as many issues as the ones that were in Britain. The factories were still a death trap with many people being killed by horrible machines and working conditions. The workers were also hurt and deformed by hours of hard working and their was many revolts by factory workers because of lowering of wages.

While both of these work places had their fair share of horrible conditions the working conditions in Britain were worse then those found in America. One of the main reasons that the working conditions in America was better was due to the factory's needing to recruit workers. Both of these conditions were bad but they both could of been safer and better had their been better restrictions and regulations on what went on in the factories.